Imperial War Museum London #dailyshoot #leshaines123
(Image by Leshaines123 from flickr) Details DMCA
Let's break down the propaganda to figure out how this increase in violence fits into the NATO narrative:
First, the US has given several reasons for why they expect Russia to invade
over the last few weeks. That alone should give us pause, given the certainty
with which the US has been making these claims. Since they have cited no
evidence for most of them, you have to wonder why the secret "evidence" keeps
changing. If you've been keeping track, they are, in order:
- "Putin wants to restore the Empire." This has been repeated ad nauseum since the outbreak of the crisis, most recently by Blinken on Wednesday.
- Unsourced "evidence" indicated Russia will stage a false flag attack on Donbass as a pretext for invasion
- Unsourced evidence indicated Russia will fake a false flag in Donbass, using staged video.
- Officials stated that Russia will use its
promise to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in Donbass as a "pretext"
for crossing the border.
Of these, only the last is a plausible reason
that Russia would trigger massive sanctions by invading. If there is any
validity to the US doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. That's the pseudo-legal
argument that was cited as the reason for violent US interventions in Libya and
Syria in contravention of international law. If there is a time when it was
justified, this would be it. More properly, it would be an example of using force
to prevent genocide (see below for more on this).
As the situation evolves, the propaganda gets more convoluted:
- Thursday, it was reported that Russia was going to invade in respond to a Ukrainian attack on Donbass. By Friday, media were reporting it was unclear who attacked
first, even though it makes no sense to imagine that the residents of Donbass
were trying to goad the Ukrainian military into attacking, as it was clearly
prepared to do (again, more on this below).
- In responding to reports of the increased shelling, Biden stated that the
attack on Donbass was a "false flag" operation by Russia, claiming that Russia
had fired the first shots in order to provoke a Ukrainian response that would create
a "pretext" for an invasion. Interestingly, a reporter on the scene in the same
televised report categorically stated that Russia had not fired the first
shots.
- A day later, explosions rocked downtown Donetsk and Luhansk, the two principal cities of the breakaway Donbass region. At the time of this
writing, I am awaiting the announcement that this was the long-awaited Russian
false flag.
It's worth noting that over time, more responsible news sources have begun explaining
the Russian security concerns detailed in their response to US demands to withdraw
from their own border. At the same time, western media continued to describe these
red lines only as "demands," as if Russia explaining its red lines in the face
of US threats is unreasonable. Not surprisingly, US officials simply dismissed the most important of these arguments without acknowledging that they had any validity, while
claiming to want to negotiate peace (on US terms, of course).
If one accepts that the only plausible reason
for a Russian incursion was to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in
Ukraine, and that the US must have known, why did Biden suddenly predict before
the shelling that it was going to happen within 24-48 hours, again with no
evidence? It's reasonable to suspect that the US knew Ukraine was going to
attack because it was behind it.
The US government had been trying
to talk Ukraine's President Zelensky into escalating the conflict since last
spring. Zelensky responded to Washington's lead with threats to residents of the breakaway Republics, but by January he lost his nerve and began to openly dispute US claims of "imminent" war that would serve no one's interest but that of the US weapons industry.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
3
